Gevlon: Don't help dumb people because I have absolutely no evidence that they cannot be helped. (My interpretation)
For the most part, M&S are made, not born or chosen. Read up on child development and the role of proper nutrition and early education. A capable child may be born, but in an unstimulating environment, their mind won't develop; they will grow up stupid, by no or fault of their own, but only by the environment. If there was more support for poor children, they'd be less stupid. Your antisocial tendencies actually create more M&S rather than reducing them.
and how would you give more support to poor children? Children cannot trade. You can only give to their parents who will spend it on smoke and booze.
Is he really this stupid? Where the fuck does he even get the idea "children can't trade"? It's completely irrelevant. And the smokes and booze, seriously, that's... that's just the sort of retarded lazy stereotype that a moron would use.
Children do not need to 'trade' or own or be directly given any money. Instead there can be these things called 'schools' in which children are 'taught' and unless the parents somehow know how to extract knowledge from their brains and sell it for crack, the 'school' won't be used to buy the parents drugs. Furthermore, at these 'schools' the children can be given lunch and dinner, which will be digested while they are there, meaning that unless their parents steal their blood, the children are the only ones getting the food.
There are ways to help children without helping terrible parents. Unfortunately, some people are so busy hating the world that they lack the free mental resources to think of these. Like I said, free public education and free lunch and breakfast for sufficiently poor children. Or public libraries where children can go to learn as much as they want. These were really fucking obvious.
Of course no system or solution is perfect. There will be some kids for whom school is a waste. In an ideal world they would be sent somewhere else to kill each other and smoke crack as they wish. Unfortunately that's not legal. Schooling them will be a waste, but waste is inevitable in any system.
It is unjust to reject all children who lack the ability to pay for their own schooling (by that I mean, whose parents are too poor to pay for it) simply because a significant portion will be wasted. To use a minority of moronic children to justify the abandonment of the majority is little different than the indiscriminate killing of civilians practiced by terrorists. It is the bedrock of civilization to not punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.
Furthermore, it is harmful to have large uneducated populations. Without education, they are more prone to violence and social unrest. How so? School isn't just about geometry and history; it's also a place where people are taught to follow rules, to respect authority, to be civilized. It serves no one to have large populations with little hope of employment and no respect for rules (including rule of law). That is an easy recruitment center for enemies of civilization; criminals, foreign enemies, terrorists, whoever.
I'm not saying we need to be nice or the stupid people will attack us. If that was the case I'd just say to shoot them while we have the element of surprise.
What I am saying is that we should not reject the upcoming generations purely because their parents lacked the means to educate and develop them. To do so is actively encouraging the growth of a worthless, unruly population. No one benefits when the world turns into Brazil: massive ghettos of uneducated idiots surrounding tiny enclaves of the inherited rich. Of course we also should not be France, whose excessive government support has discouraged employment, which impairs the social integration of Muslim immigrants, fueling discontent. The middle is almost always better than the extremes.
Some days I think Gevlon is just selfish and lacks empathy. Other days he appears to be incapable of anything approaching rational thought or seeing the possibility that he is wrong.
His title should have given it away: "Challenge for social(ist)s"
He somehow has the ridiculous idea that social people; those who acre about their fellow human beings, are the slightest bit interchangeable with socialists. Obviously there would be some link between caring about other people and an economic system of government ownership for a collective good. But socials are far more likely to not work through government, but on their own. It's called charity. Socials don't demand that the government take over industry. They give money to charities and volunteer and take an active role.
As I think about this more, I can only conclude that Gevlon's grasp of English is so poor that he does not realize that social and socialist are not synonyms, and despite sharing a root (social), they do not share the entirety of their meaning. Or, he's only reaching logical conclusions given his initial assumption: Everyone else is so incredibly stupid, they can barely breath without government subsidies for air. When you start from that, it's not hard to see how he could reach all sorts of conclusions which would seem ridiculous if you started with more reasonable assumptions such as assuming that reality exists and is not merely an illusion created by aliens.
It's so easy to be angry and point out the flawed thinking of fools. I shouldn't be so lazy.